the list (of criminals) is revealed

[whiteymet]

I just started to take a look at the list and found two items that were curious.

The first is from Auction 41 April 07 Lot # 829 Consigned by Dan Knoll, Shilled by Dennis Beechy, won by DOUG ALLEN for $862 and the loss amount was $44! This is not like other lots where the shill won the lot, this appears that Doug wanted the lot. See:

http://legendaryauctions.com/_The_Ey...-LOT69974.aspx


The second item also from the April 07 Auction Lot #671 Consigned by Gilbert Proter, shilled by Andrew Filipowski, won by Tony Arnold for $60,717 the loss amount was $ 4,424,

However if one looks at the listing below it shows the lot did not sell. Wonder what happened?

http://legendaryauctions.com/LotDeta...entoryid=69816

[mickeymao34]

The statement that "just because they are consignors doesn't mean they are part of the scam" is true theoretically. But if it has a the one and the same shill bidder consistently throughout 30-40 consignments the pointing of finger seems justified. And WTF is Darryl??

[cardaholic]

There's one sure-fire way not to be shilled: Never bid over the minimum bid.

[mickeymao34]

Originally Posted by cardaholic

there's one sure-fire way not to be shilled: Never bid over the minimum bid. :d

true dat! Lmfao

[BBSD]

Curious if Peter and Ron would fess up to anyother sketchy situations that they were involved with?

[scooter729]

Curious as to what people would think of this hypothetical situation, if it were possible for it to happen....

Two friends (A and B) both are interested in an item that doesn't pop up often, but typically would sell for around $500. But since it doesn't come up for sale often, both are willing to pay $1,000+.

In talking, they both realize they are likely going to bid each other up on the item, so they come to an agreement to have Friend B stay away from bidding on this item and let A get it for ~$500, and B will be able to get the next one that comes available for ~$500.

Is this scenario wrong? Seems like the buyer's version of shilling - wouldn't be illegal but is it ethical?

[Stonepony]

Originally Posted by scooter729

Curious as to what people would think of this hypothetical situation, if it were possible for it to happen....

Two friends (A and B) both are interested in an item that doesn't pop up often, but typically would sell for around $500. But since it doesn't come up for sale often, both are willing to pay $1,000+.

In talking, they both realize they are likely going to bid each other up on the item, so they come to an agreement to have Friend B stay away from bidding on this item and let A get it for ~$500, and B will be able to get the next one that comes available for ~$500.

Is this scenario wrong? Seems like the buyer's version of shilling - wouldn't be illegal but is it ethical?

I have no problem with this. There was no price manipulation and the item sold for what it typically would bring. There's nothing unethical about not bidding.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by scooter729

Curious as to what people would think of this hypothetical situation, if it were possible for it to happen....

Two friends (A and B) both are interested in an item that doesn't pop up often, but typically would sell for around $500. But since it doesn't come up for sale often, both are willing to pay $1,000+.

In talking, they both realize they are likely going to bid each other up on the item, so they come to an agreement to have Friend B stay away from bidding on this item and let A get it for ~$500, and B will be able to get the next one that comes available for ~$500.

Is this scenario wrong? Seems like the buyer's version of shilling - wouldn't be illegal but is it ethical?

Hi Scooter. You pose an interesting question. Please know that my answer is not an attack, snarky response, or anything of the sort. I am just joining in the conversation.

As it pertains to the scenario above, wouldn't this be an example of bidder collusion? I very well could be mistaken; however, think the practice actually is illegal. At the very least, it artificially suppresses the price of the item. It could likely also be argued that the consignor suffered economic harm because of the bidders' agreement.

For the purpose of full disclosure, I never participated in Mastro auctions.

Best regards to all. Happy collecting.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by cardaholic

There's one sure-fire way not to be shilled: Never bid over the minimum bid.

Don't know if this is exactly true. As in the Peter case, if I bid the minimum, a "protector" of the lot would outbid me. So a little later, I'll try to bid one higher, and be in the lead, only to have them respond. So I guess the only sure-fire way to not be shilled is to only place the opening bid, and if you don't win, walk away.

[Joe_G.]

Reading this thread with interest. I feel for those who were taken advantage of.

Originally Posted by whiteymet

The second item also from the April 07 Auction Lot #671 Consigned by Gilbert Proter, shilled by Andrew Filipowski, won by Tony Arnold for $60,717 the loss amount was $ 4,424,

However if one looks at the listing below it shows the lot did not sell. Wonder what happened?

http://legendaryauctions.com/LotDeta...entoryid=69816

Those cabinets were auctioned individually and as a whole with the break-up total of $73,010 receiving a higher total than the whole. I remember watching that one with interest, some absolutely great NY cabinets within.

[wolf441]

So this thread is now #7 all time in number of replies and #9 all time in number of views. I feel like I did when Bonds was chasing Aaron...

I'm predicting that it lands at #2 on both lists by the middle of next week.

Frank, the "What's Your Monster Number?" thread is safe...for now!

[wolf441]

Originally Posted by wolf441

So this thread is now #7 all time in number of replies and #9 all time in number of views. I feel like I did when Bonds was chasing Aaron...

I'm predicting that it lands at #2 on both lists by the middle of next week.


Frank, the "What's Your Monster Number?" thread is safe...for now!

Nailed it!!

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by wolf441

Nailed it!!

Steve,

This thread is a hare. The MN is a tortoise.

My first wife was a Neuman. What me worry!

[wolf441]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

Steve,

This thread is a hare. The MN is a tortoise.

My first wife was a Neuman. What me worry!

That's right, it's a marathon, not a sprint. Don't worry, if this thread starts to get close to the Monster Number thread, I'll engage in "shill viewing" the monster thread to keep it at #1!!

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by wolf441

That's right, it's a marathon, not a sprint. Don't worry, if this thread starts to get close to the Monster Number thread, I'll engage in "shill viewing" the monster thread to keep it at #1!!

Also there is allegations of HGH in this thread...any records will be met with an asterick *